Global Warming Real and Fake Arguments and Sources?

Global Warming Real and Fake Arguments and Sources? Topic: Reliable sources for research paper
June 19, 2019 / By Magdalen
Question: So I have to write 2 reports this week about global warming being real and global warming being fake. I am supposed to use .edu sites because my teacher says they are more reliable. These reports are 5 pages each and I have 2 pages on global warming being real and almost 1 page on global warming being fake. I am having a hard time finding much information on global warming being fake from .edu sites so any reliable websites would help. I can find information on global warming being real but most of it is the same thing, green house gases, so it is taking a long time to find anything so even if you don't have sources just give me some reasons global warming is real other than just it's hot, I need something I can research which has evidence to back it up. I can do the same thing for global warming being fake but it is easier to just get websites if you have them. Thanks. I am not saying global warming is real or fake I am just writing papers about it. I myself have no idea whether or not it is real or not because both sides have concrete evidence but by the end of these reports I may have an opinion.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Global Warming Real and Fake Arguments and Sources?

Kerry Kerry | 9 days ago
The for or against argument is summed up with nightwings answer (look at the links) newspaper & blogs this is pretty much the denier case a multitude of different and conflicting theories and conspiracies, not sure what you would call 'concrete' in any of that. The denier case seem to boil down to calling everyone in the science community liars but producing nothing to back anything they are saying, they claim to have a petition of 31000 scientists who oppose AGW, yet in the years this has been around not even a small percentage of these have ever shown up at any climate conference to show they even exist.
👍 266 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? Global Warming Real and Fake Arguments and Sources? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Reliable sources for research paper

Kerry Originally Answered: Global Warming?
I don't think the situation is quite that dire, but, hey, what do I know? Scientists aren't able to predict that far into the future because so much can change. However, there's only so just much fossil fuel for us to burn, so there's a limiting factor right there. My thought is that when we burn it all, we'll be back to the atmospheric CO2 situation before the catastophic event that killed and buried the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. Here's a graph showing temperature over the last 65 million years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:65_My... The graph shows temp rising to an average 12 degrees (C) warmer than we have today. That's about 22 degrees (F). That's an average increase. I can't even begin to guess what that means in terms of number of days with temperature over 120 degrees (F) or even over 125 degrees (F) over how much of the planet, but I don't think summers will be much fun. The polar ice caps completely melt at about half that increase (6 degrees (C), same picture). So they will be gone. The Greenland Ice sheet, representing about 10% of the world ice, would raise sea level by about 6.5 meters if it melted. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn97... ), so if it all melts, it would raise sea level by about 65 meters. This does not include the thermal expansion of the water at the higher temperature. But anyway, we have a ball park figure and 65 meters is not going to flood the world. Remember, this is a WORST CASE SCENARIO. And I see people surviving through it. But I don't think life is going to be as cushy as it is now.

Jade Jade
DO download the Royal Societ report that Richie refers to. DON'T pay any attention to what he says it says. here is its conclusion: 57 There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems. 58 It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected. 59 Like many important decisions, policy choices about climate change have to be made in the absence of perfect knowledge. Even if the remaining uncertainties were substantially resolved, the wide variety of interests, cultures and beliefs in society would make consensus about such choices difficult to achieve. However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made. Climate science – including the substantial body of knowledge that is already well established, and the results of future research – is the essential basis for future climate projections and planning, and must be a vital component of public reasoning in this complex and challenging area.
👍 110 | 👎 2

Emerald Emerald
Not many if any. Might be in view that there is not any "truly clinical proof" towards international local weather difference.... You look to undergo from *** - Anti Science Syndrome and an much more extreme case of affirmation bias wherein the one "proof" you can take delivery of is proof which works your foregone end. That isn't how technology works. @Mick T - the object approximately Jim Hansen you carry up is filled with fake claims. I've published a hyperlink within the assets to a weblog which takes it aside. Also, there's abundant proof that Hansen (and plenty of different scientists handling local weather difference) used to be certainly muzzled. See the assets for a hyperlink to a giant committee document coming to this conlusion "The proof earlier than the Committee ends up in one inescapable end: the Bush Administration has engaged in a scientific attempt to manage local weather difference technology and lie to policymakers and the general public approximately the hazards of international warming."
👍 102 | 👎 -5

Christy Christy
I don't believe any of Nightwind's links are to educational websites (.edu), and none of them refer to recognised agencies/organistations (.org, .gov). So you decided how "reliable" their argument is. Personally I have found this: http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf To be one of the most reliable and easiest to read documents regarding climate change. It is by the Australian Academy of Science (about the academy http://www.science.org.au/academy/). It has simple boxes that explore general concerns, "is it a natural cycle?", "water vapour more important?", "cities increase heat?", "the sun?", "volcanoes to blame?" etc etc. All are looked at, with some left open for discussion (that is "maybe", "not likely but possibly" etc) and references provided throughout to let you the reader to investigate (all links to scientific journals and reports, not blogs or newspaper articles). The document uses arguments, and even explores possible arguments "against" global warming (note the correct terminology would be that "global warming is anthropogenic influenced versus that global warming is a natural occurrence" ... the validity of global warming is rarely argued, it is the influencing factor(s) that lead to real scientific arguments).
👍 94 | 👎 -12

Avice Avice
First I'll provide evidences for global warming then rebuttles to those statements already made. Global warming is based off of one of the most fundamental aspects of climate science, that being the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is based off another aspect of science, quantum mechanics, that is one of the most well established scientific theories in science. http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/facu... http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/003-... Now that you understand the greenhouse effect it's important to know how CO2 is a greenhouse gas, what wavelengths CO2 absorbs in and the measurements of both outgoing and downward radiation. The major band of radiation absorbed by CO2 that deals with the greenhouse effect is centered at roughly 15 micrometers. This means that, as well as radiation with a wavelength of 15 micrometers being absorbed, the shoulders of the bandwidth are also absorbed. CO2 increase is logarithmic, meaning as you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the amount of radiation able to be trapped in the atmosphere by that CO2 is decreased. Measurements, however, show that as CO2 increases, as per measurements at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, so does the energy trapped at the associated wavelengths increase. You can view several proofs of this below. CO2 increase - http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmosphe... (Click on links for specific sites) The following links come from peer reviewed scientific journals. I'm sure if you use these it will be fine with your teacher. Outgoing longwave radiation changes - http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI4204.1 Downward longwave radiation changes - http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2009JD011800.shtml As well as these measurements, proofs that the current warming is not due to the Sun include things such as the cooling upper atmosphere while, at the same time, the lower atmosphere warms. Also we have satellites in orbit that can measure solar output and there has been no increase in solar radiation that can account for the warming. Cooling mesosphere and lower thermosphere - http://www.springerlink.com/content/v3571t50341k1704/ (Note: The stratosphere, which is below the mesosphere, would be cooling as well if it wasn't for the increase of ozone in this region which is the primary driver of the warming of the stratosphere.) Satellite measurements - http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2094/1367.full More evidences: 13C/12C ratio - http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2005/EcolStudKeeling/2005EcolStudKeeling.pdf Increasing ocean acidification - http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~gruber/publication/pdf_files/orr_nat_05.pdf If you'll notice many of the links that say Anthropogenic warming is not true have to do with politics, conspiracy theories, and so on and amount to news articles, blogs, and fake petitions.
👍 86 | 👎 -19

Abigail Abigail
The global warmers don't have any science apart from computer models this and computer models that. Garbage in equals garbage out. How do they observe "climate" being as climate is supposed to be the average weather over a long period of time? How does anybody seriously study climate with no raw data, or haven’t they heard the historical climate data appears to be missing. In its place is a bunch of homogenized crap made up by a guy we should all trust because he like them only has our best interest at heart and honest he got it all right the first time and didn’t need it any more so he deleted it? How do they calculate man made carbon dioxide when 72% of the planet is under oceans and nobody has the slightest clue how many undersea volcanoes that are active? There could be 300% or more unknown CO2 spewing sources under our oceans. When the main greenhouse gas, water is 99.9 % more prevalent than Carbon dioxide why has the climate never run away as they all claim a couple parts per million of CO2 is supposed to do. What happened to the 3000 missing weather stations that we used up until 1970s. How do they compare the temperature of a planet over time when they are not even using the same data sources? Why are 300 weather stations in Canada’s Arctic ignored and only one used? It’s situated on an Island known as the garden spot of the Arctic. Every time a new story is printed by a supposed green source all we ever see for evidence is observation and convenient assumptions by people whose reputations seem to precede them. Has their science been so debunked that nobody is willing to print it any more or does the thought of a real scientist looking over their work and showing the world that they just make the stuff up as they go along scare the hell out of them? (Real scientists being sceptical scientists). Science is not gossip about "done science" that nobody seems to know where to find or when they do it turns out to be a hundred years old and based on a none finite atmosphere. Science is prove it or move on, not if you can't prove it call them names or change the subject and talk about sustainability or windmills, or changes your name from global warmists to climate change proponents and hope nobody notices. If that doesn’t work try fear mongering. They remind me of the people who use to walk the streets of Berkley in robes carrying placards reading “Repent the end is near”. Is there nothing in their lives that doesn’t cause doomsday? The question comes to mind: Do any of them have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. Climate has changed since the beginning of time. We are either going into or coming out of an ice age thus we are either getting warmer or getting colder. The only doomsday in the horizon is the one they are trying really hard to create. Sharing unsubstantiated gossip does not constitute science. I see them for what they really are .... Zealots ...They are willing to destroy billions of peoples lives for their religious beliefs, because that is what it is. The consensus that they speak of incessantly is not science. Science does not use consensus. Consensus is the last hope of a bad theory and people who have too much invested in the outcome to look at the world with a clear rational head. Smart people would have investigated the science before they spent their lives being “useful idiots” to those who would subvert them and their best intentions. Did they really think that the wealthy elitists would just give them all the money if they could just convince them of their faith? The meek will not inherit the earth they will just continue to serve those that will; however, as long as their wishes serve their purpose they will allow them their fantasy. ... However you are correct that AGW material source is usually bias towards its financial backers. The Royal Society has always fought to support man made global warming for many decades and have been fully committed to the AGW cause however they recently brought out an updated report as their were many of their sceptical members demanding a change to their stance on AGW. This new short guide to climate change is not quite so bias as it talks about the massive uncertainties with AGW theory. You can download this report here: http://royalsociety.org/News_WF.aspx?pag...
👍 78 | 👎 -26

Stewart Stewart
there's more proof Global warming to be a lie than real. First off, there's ample proof that climate scientists have been lying to us. From the inaccuracies if not out right lies from the 2007 IPCC report, to the lies about polar bears drowning (when actual populations have quadrupled since the 50's), then there's the fake hockeystick graph, Not to mention ClimateGate and many many notes and internal messages from scientists being frustrated that the data didn't support thier theories. Then there have been a few whom physically went out to the temperature stations to prove that they haven't been kept to standards. Some were fund next to blacktop parking lots, others by exhaust outlets or vehicles. Most were painted with a different type of paint and had electronics added to the cabinets. It would seem that the climate scientist have become lazy or plain sloppy and expected us to believe thier BS. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20... http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd... So now that we know we can't trust what scientists say, lets look at reality. I've already mentioned that the polar bears drowning is a lie. Then there's this "greenhouse" effect. Since man kind hasn't changed the production of CO2, according to the so calle greenhouse effect, The planet should have been constantly rising, yet there has been more cooling than any heating in the past 15 years. Then there are all the stories we've heard about the GW deniers being hunted by the liars. They've had thier fund pulled, grants cancelled, political and person threats, etc all because they were honest enough to question the theory of global warming. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734 Here in california we have an accelerated global warming and climate change fight againt the morons in the CARB board controlling the state. They are driving companies out of the state needed for financial recovery without a care forthe people, companies or those hurting during a recession. They've gone so far as to implement initiatives based on a fake report, made by a fake scientists with a fake degree given to him by an on line pedophile. Thank you Mary Nicoles you useless beyotch. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/business/energy-environment/03solar.html?_r=1&src=busln http://www.sccaweb.com/magazine/March-April_2010_science.htm http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/21/EDGM1FGPV9.DTL These are just a few examples of how far out of control the dumba$$ enviromental movement has become, and someone needs to put a stop to it. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/ Then there's the fact that history has shown changes in many initiatives based not only on "need" but on technological changes. We use to have to deal with acid rain due to old coal plants, but times have changed and despite the increase in our use of electricity, todays coal plants don't pollute like they use to. Yet the eco freaks keep up the lies about pollution. They won't tell you that air and water has improved over 10 fold since the 70's. They won't tell you that there have been technological advancements. They also think back a$$ward in trying to get citizens to burden the load of this 'green change' rather than government and industry making the changes. We use electricity, they provide it, as users we can't do much to 'be green'. Not to mention that we have made all this progress so far gradually, where as the new 'green movement' are arrogantly demanding change NOW without regard to how thier irrationality is effecting people and thier cost of living. http://www.thebraziltimes.com/story/1672436.html This all goes without even mentioning the activists leading the charge of idiots are themselves living a high carbon footprint lifestyle while thy tell us that we should be cutting back. http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/501 Government of course is jumping on board because if they can tax people more or create fee's for anyone creating CO2, they will obviously go for it since they spend money like drunk whores without giving a damn about individual people. We know government is doing this, so eco freaks decrying this green invasion are doing more harm to people than they are doing good by playing right into the pocket of governments greed for more money. So, what else do we need to know ? Sure, I can't explain the anamolies in ice core samples but that is hardly enough to prove there's a problem with the climate, much less proof that man is responsible.
👍 70 | 👎 -33

Stewart Originally Answered: Global warming question?
listen, we have ALL over the decades, damaged this planet, and its to late to start rectifying the problem now, we were warned years ago, by many scientists, but we took no notice, done nothing now species of animals plants, are under danger, still we do things to further the problem so i would'nt worry about rivers the sea, it will rise, because we refuse to take heed of advice, we have all gone deaf, as to whats happening to this planet

If you have your own answer to the question reliable sources for research paper, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.